c168 WHY CIV-SPECIFIC UNITS ARE A GOOD IDEA

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Jeje2
But, why do we argue anymore?
Soren Johnson, Firaxis, has given us some information and we will have these units in some form.

We continue to debate in order to try and influence the thinking of the FIRAXIS team. Until they have decided exactly how these issues will be handled that seems like a worthwhile activity to me. They may implement a system which 75% of the dedicated players have modified within 3 months of release because it is unsuitable or undesirable for whatever reason. If that happens then they will have missed an opportunity to introduce an alternative system that more people would use. Short of being a beta tester and being able to really evaluate, all we can do is speculate. It has the side effect of encouraging Firaxians to post here and clarify our thinking with some genuine facts

[LaRusso]

I was on Europa Universalis international beta team. Boy, was that fun.....
It feels even better when you are able to make some useful comments beyond bugs reporting. Although EU ended up with some bugs which are successfully fixed by subsequent patches, I am rather sure that its great gameplay owns quite a bit to extensive beta testing.

Last but not least, I would sell my soul for Civ3 beta! Anyone at Firaxis badly in need of a soul?

[ZoboZeWarrior]

I'm agree with the idea that have specifics units is against the Civilization-game concept.

What about a viking civilization who live in a mountain area far from sea ? Will they have developt drakkar. Nop.

My opinion is that all units must be accessible to all civilizations. But the graphical representation must be different. (Western swordmen unit will be different that eastern one).

The fun in civilzation is to see a Viking civilization, born in a jungle milleniums ago, attacking his foe with mounted Oliphants units.

[Yog-Sothoth]

Originally posted by Omada

Every special unit ("Panzer tank") is tied to a specific special tech advance ("Panzer tank technology"). This special advance is offered to all civs that has reached the appropriate base tech ("Armor"), but as soon as one civ starts researching the special tech no other civ can pick it.



This way, the special units are not preset at the beginning of time (avoiding the problem with longships for desert-dwelling vikings) and there is an significant cost attached to getting the unit ("I have Armor. Do I develop Panzers, or should I go for Flight and possibly the F-15 instead?").

I like this idea, but I would like all special unit techs to be open to all civs. This way everyone can choose the unit that fit their strategy best. I don't think this would be to hard to program the AI do to either.

This will mean that special units wouldn't be uniquely tied to specific civs, but I think with culture etc, each civ will be more than unique enough.

Another advantage I think will come from this idea, is that you don't know which special unit the civs you encounter will have, so you cant just start to produce the units you know works best against their particular special unit right after the first encounter.

[Jason]

Now, these ideas for special units I like; player specific and not civ specific.

Perhaps a dead-end tech that only provides the unit, "Blitzkrieg Warfare," everyone can research, or a one-player only mini-wonder? If it's too expensive noone would bother, probobly.

As many people have pointed out, Panzers as a German unit is pretty ahistorical. Heck, the people who pioneered the German tank-penetration strategy were British, even if their army refused to adopt the techniques in any meaningful way before the war.

[Mike Breitkreutz FIRAXIS]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Actually my spies report this controversy is all kind of pointless because the real reason we're getting unique civs and units is because to save time and money Firaxis is building Civ 3 using the Smac engine. Guess what? Smac has unique civs and units

Ack! I think your spies have you misinformed. While we did start with the SMAC engine to get something playable very quickly, we have subsequently removed and rewritten (and debugged) over 90% of the SMAC code. The Civ3 engine has very little in common with the SMAC engine (and will have even less in common when it's done...).

[Gramphos]

It's great to have this (the engine) confirmed once againg.
I've heard it for a while ago, but things may change.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis
Because there has been so much interest in civ-specific units and powers, both on the positive and negative side, we should probably clarify once and for all that civ-specific powers and units will be fully editable. Thus, the anti-civ-specific crowd should have no problem taking them out of the game, and mod writers will also have the flexibilty to construct highly civ-specific scenarios.

Thanks for the post, Soren, but I think you've misunderstood the concerns of the "anti-civ-specific crowd". Look, we realize that you guys have put a lot of time and effort into developing "unique units", and probably ain't none too happy about us kicking the idea. But it's not that we necessarily want them out of the game, but that we'd like them to not be pre-determined before game start, and preferably determined by the environment the civ finds itself in. Failing that, a suggestion has been made to allow the civ who 1st discovers the pre-req tech for the appropriate unique unit to choose that unit if so desired- but then cannot choose one later. Of course both of these will require that the AI is smart enough to realize when to accept certain units.
Truth to tell I'd be happy just knowing that you've included different images for the same standard units based on different civs, or at least different cultures.

[Gramphos]

Soren, are you from Sweden?
To me Soren sounds as the Swedish name Sören without the dots. Together with that comes that you have the surname Johnson which in Swedish, from the beginning, meant 'Son of John'.

[Kc7mxo]

Unique units completly go against the concept of civilization that has built up in my mind over the years I've played it. Perhaps for others of you its what you've always wanted, I don't know.

I cannot understand why anyone would want them. Civ isn't about recreating our history, its about creating a new history. The names of the different civs are unimportant, thats why you can change them. They're just there for you to enjoy and to give it grounds in reality.

Special units can only unbalance the game, either via greatly strengthining a civ above its neighbors, or by weakening a civ below its neighbors. How can it weaken somebody? If all my neighbors have awesome land special units, but I got an awesome naval unit, what happens to me? And if I'm landlocked? Even worse. Of course, it won't be a problem very long.

The best method to solve this is to make the special units that that much of a bonus, but then, whats the point of having htem at all?

[Soren Johnson]

Originally posted by vgriph
Soren, are you from Sweden?
To me Soren sounds as the Swedish name Sören without the dots. Together with that comes that you have the surname Johnson which in Swedish, from the beginning, meant 'Son of John'.

Close. I am Norwegian-American...

[JosefGiven]

Originally posted by Mike Breitkreutz FIRAXIS
Ack! I think your spies have you misinformed. While we did start with the SMAC engine to get something playable very quickly, we have subsequently removed and rewritten (and debugged) over 90% of the SMAC code. The Civ3 engine has very little in common with the SMAC engine (and will have even less in common when it's done...).

I think it is a shame that we won't see a SMAC style 3D terrain in Civ III. Not only does it look good, but gradients could provide defence bonuses/farming penalties, etc. The 3D terrain in SMAC was one of the only features I liked. The named geographical features like Gorbachev's Plateau (or whatever) were cool, too.

A fully 3D terrain would not make scenario-building too difficult, either. How hard would it be to implement a wireframe editor with a bitmap textures file to edit so a scenario designer could alter both the shape and appearence of the terrain?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
Unique units completly go against the concept of civilization that has built up in my mind over the years I've played it. Perhaps for others of you its what you've always wanted, I don't know.

So your saying making all the Civ's the same is the true concept of civilization? What makes a civilization a civilization is its uniqueness. If I had my way, all units would be civ specific. And you know what? That's how the real world is.

I cannot understand why anyone would want them. Civ isn't about recreating our history, its about creating a new history. The names of the different civs are unimportant, thats why you can change them. They're just there for you to enjoy and to give it grounds in reality.

People want REALISM in games. Why do you think people bought Civilization in the first place? Because you could control the Ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, etc, and rewrite history with a realistic twist.

Special units can only unbalance the game, either via greatly strengthining a civ above its neighbors, or by weakening a civ below its neighbors. How can it weaken somebody? If all my neighbors have awesome land special units, but I got an awesome naval unit, what happens to me? And if I'm landlocked? Even worse. Of course, it won't be a problem very long.

Is the world balanced and fair? NO! Why do you think so many ancient civilizations don't exist any more. And its your own dumb fault for building all naval units if your land-locked. Don't blame your lack of skill on the developers and civ spefic lovers.

The best method to solve this is to make the special units that that much of a bonus, but then, whats the point of having htem at all?

Actually the best method to solve this is to let the game makers make the game. I bet you a million dollars when the game comes out you will spend hours upon hours playing it. I love how people get all upset with change when it is for the better.

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis
Close. I am Norwegian-American...

I was sure that you had roots in Norway or Sweden because of your surname. (In Denmark it would have been sen instead of son). Then I guessed Sweden because I'm Swede

[SerapisIV]

Originally posted by SoulAssassin
Actually the best method to solve this is to let the game makers make the game. I bet you a million dollars when the game comes out you will spend hours upon hours playing it. I love how people get all upset with change when it is for the better.

I hope so, I'm extremely warry of unique units, but hopefully Firaxis will strike a nice balance, play-balancing over various ages is my biggest concern.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by SoulAssassin


So your saying making all the Civ's the same is the true concept of civilization? What makes a civilization a civilization is its uniqueness. If I had my way, all units would be civ specific. And you know what? That's how the real world is.



People want REALISM in games. Why do you think people bought Civilization in the first place? Because you could control the Ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, etc, and rewrite history with a realistic twist.



Is the world balanced and fair? NO! Why do you think so many ancient civilizations don't exist any more. And its your own dumb fault for building all naval units if your land-locked. Don't blame your lack of skill on the developers and civ spefic lovers.



Actually the best method to solve this is to let the game makers make the game. I bet you a million dollars when the game comes out you will spend hours upon hours playing it. I love how people get all upset with change when it is for the better.

Yet another who fails to understand the relation of CSU's to historical accuracy. CSU's make civ LESS accurate, not more so.
Yes, civilizations in the past have been unique. But they have been unique as a RESULT of their history. EG Brits didnt have it in their genes to be great sailors, a sequence of geographical accidents, historical accident and deliberate decisions resulted in their naval superiority. Ideally civ should play so that IF you start on the right location on a real world map, and follow historical strategies as closely as possible, you should end up with historical results. If you DONT start with same location, or follow the same startegies, you should end up with different results.

I can understand pro-CSU position that this is only a game. The view that CSU's make the game more historical is however, incorrect.

For a deeper view of historical what if's and the problems that come with assuming you can change one hisotrical factor without impacting all others, i suggest following Soc.history.what-if.


I do suspect that the CSU's will add to sales however.

LOTM

[eNo]

Hmm..lord of the mark's comments makes me wonder: What if unique units are granted according to history?

That is if a civ in its history has been very warlike, it is granted a special warrior unit to reflect the civ's experiance with war. A civ that starts off on an island or/and has made extensive use of water is granted a special frigate.
The unit granted will also be appropriate to the civ's technological level. A warlike civ learning flight after every other civ won't get the F15 unit but neither will the peaceful civ who discovered flight first.

Heck you could probably tie the new culture stuff into it by putting a culture minimum before you get the unique unit.

[Cyclotron]

So your saying making all the Civ's the same is the true concept of civilization? What makes a civilization a civilization is its uniqueness. If I had my way, all units would be civ specific. And you know what? That's how the real world is.

Yes. A Civilization is made by its uniqueness. So why let Firaxis give you a straitjacket that is CSUs? As far as I am concerned, enforced and never-changing uniqueness is not uniqueness at all.

You obviously have no concept of what Civilization is at all. It is the re-creation of history. Got it? Which means that is the REAL WORLD, I should be able to shape the path of my Civ, including what units they develop according to my choices and my civ's environment. So don't tell me about the real world, because Civ is about making your own "real world."

People want REALISM in games. Why do you think people bought Civilization in the first place? Because you could control the Ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, etc, and rewrite history with a realistic twist.

Does the fact that people want a good and balanced game escape you? I bought Civ because I was told it was a great GAME. I son't buy something because of realism, so your generalization of "people want realism" is probably the dumbest thing you could have said. I would like to see your marketing research and study info about how this is true, but I know you don't have it because you don't know jack about what "people" want.

Is the world balanced and fair? NO! Why do you think so many ancient civilizations don't exist any more. And its your own dumb fault for building all naval units if your land-locked. Don't blame your lack of skill on the developers and civ spefic lovers.

It is unlikely that a game which is both unbalanced and unfair will be a good seller or a good game. Such games are almost always poor sellers. I personally do not believe that I or anyone I know would buy a game that was by default unbalanced and unfair to promote realism. Once again, this is a game, not real life.

Actually the best method to solve this is to let the game makers make the game. I bet you a million dollars when the game comes out you will spend hours upon hours playing it. I love how people get all upset with change when it is for the better.

Actually, the best method is to give the input we think is valuable and for people like you who have nothing better to do than say "shut up! Don't give your opinions!" to shut the hell up. If I think something is important, I have the right to say it and so do you. I happen to think that CSUs are not for the better. But please, don't try to tell me that I shouldn't say what I think... because that, my ignorant friend, is what forums are for.

I love how people think they're so much more intelligent than everyone else, when they are really making a fool out of themselves...

[LDiCesare]

I think civ-specific should be environment-specific:
If your civ only has coastal cities and no trade routes inland, then you should be able to build drakars because your civ will be very focused towards sea.
If you are landlocked, you could build a special land unit because you won't be researching sailing (although being able to research sailing when you never got out of your desert always seemed strange to me).
If you spent 200 years moving alomg without settling and you finally build a city near horses, then you could have some special light cavalry unit at some time of your history.
Based on culture, you might have some special units, but that would be cool if the special units could vary depending on the world.
NO landlocked viking drakkars please.

[Kc7mxo]

So your saying making all the Civ's the same is the true concept of civilization? What makes a civilization a civilization is its uniqueness. If I had my way, all units would be civ specific. And you know what? That's how the real world is.

The real world is not full of unique civilizations. Thats the dumbest thing i've ever heard. So we paint our tanks different from the chinese. They're still tanks. The concept is the same. Samurai are NOT different from a well trained mounted swordsmen from anywhere else. There's nothing special about japanese that allow them to learn to ride a horse and shoot a bow anymore than there is something special about "Americans" that let us be the first nation with a flying machine.

People want REALISM in games. Why do you think people bought Civilization in the first place? Because you could control the Ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, etc, and rewrite history with a realistic twist.

Really. So should we then force the american nation to start in 1776? Its rather more realistic that way. Civ is about making your OWN history. Locking a civ even slightly into a single path takes that away and will give you games that are dry and stale.

Is the world balanced and fair? NO! Why do you think so many ancient civilizations don't exist any more. And its your own dumb fault for building all naval units if your land-locked. Don't blame your lack of skill on the developers and civ spefic lovers.

This is a game doofus. It should be balanced and fair, at least to start. Any unbalances should relate to the level of difficulty chosen.

And the point i was making was that having a wonderful unique naval unit is friking pointless if you're landlocked.

Actually the best method to solve this is to let the game makers make the game. I bet you a million dollars when the game comes out you will spend hours upon hours playing it. I love how people get all upset with change when it is for the better.

Really? I'd like it if you did. It would be more money in my pocket. I don't play black and white. And I watched that game get developed for four years. I even bought the damn thing. But its not fun. I don't play games that aren't fun. I don't have that much time to waste.

Unique units are stupid. They detract from the the creativity present in a randomly generated world. And they are taking the attention and funding of the game designers, which could be better spent on developing a good ai.

Does anyone else think there is a discouraging trend of game deisngers relying on multiplayer to give challenge and letting shoddy AIs ship?

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by JosefGiven

I think it is a shame that we won't see a SMAC style 3D terrain in Civ III. Not only does it look good, but gradients could provide defence bonuses/farming penalties, etc. The 3D terrain in SMAC was one of the only features I liked. The named geographical features like Gorbachev's Plateau (or whatever) were cool, too.

Yes, why preview mention of "contour terrain" with bonus sight for units on hills, while the screenshots looks flat as in Civ 2?

Where are the enhancement on graphic SMAC engine? I didn't loved the SMAC terrain, but I supposed you are about to improve its 3D smoothness, matching different kind of terrain (e.g. plain, then hills, then mountains) in a more realistic way.

What's the design decision about using flat isometric tile and left only graphic tile simulate height? Where are hills, plateu, lake at different height?
In screenshots rivers flow without a visible reason (it was lovely the way SMAC rivers follow the terrain altitude )

Am I missing anything, Mike Breitkreutz ?

[Grumbold]

I'm happier in general with flat terrain. Why? Because we are supposed to be representing an Earthlike world. A height difference of 10-20 kilometres is barely a wrinkle on a world the size of Earth. Contoured maps with elevations and height bonuses are for small scale scenarios, not miniature worlds.

[Adm.Naismith]

Sorry Grumbold, your point is correct if all the game display objects at the very same size. Of course Civ don't act so: units, cities, whole map size, aren't in same scale.

Only advantage in flat map is your unit don't hide from view, but that can be solved in many way.

[Grumbold]

I take your point but if the graphical map looks and feels like a tiny archipelago rather than a huge world then nothing else is going to give that impression. I got no feeling of vast plains or huge mountains from SMAC's gently rolling terrain, particularly when it was so easy to raise or lower lots of it in one go.

[Alexander's Horse]

I would prefer unique units to be optional rather than editable. If any civ can shoot for the relevant techs, they are are less of a problem. I would prefer the CTP II model where the first to discover certain techs, such as gunpowder, gets a time limited advantage.

[Maniac]

cyclotron7:

I love how people think they're so much more intelligent than everyone else, when they are really making a fool out of themselves...

Yeah I know. I also love it when certain people make bad remarks about other people, but don't realize those same remarks can be applied to themselves.

M@ni@c
The eternal self-doubter, self-critic and self-relativator